GlassCaseOfEmotion

werner and takumi are ballers

you probably have your firewall set to screen for quality. zing. only because alex werner prolly worked on it.

given the state of disad uniqueness, this CP is a necessity. easily worth 10 dollars because it will win you at least 1 round and it links to almost every aff.

its unnecessary and will most likely make it harder for you. heres why: if they have offense against one of the net benefits, you cant just go for the other one if you pic out of both words. also, most likely, winning the substance of the net benefit is not going to be your problem with this strat, so adding more to that portion of the debate will just suck up more 2nr time that you will be needing to spend on theory and the permutations.

christos' brother debated with skarb in college at asu, so i can somewhat understand his defense of him, as he has probably had many positive personal interactions with him.

solving poverty = better competitiveness, competitiveness = hege, hege is bad. poverty is good.

Regarding emails: if we think that they can be beneficial, but risky, a way to try and hedge against the bad parts is to draft a community agreed upon paragraph that explained the nature of debate and the impact email conversations might have on it. It should also include and explanation that the intent of the conversation is to be used as evidence in a round and that it will not be used unless explicit consent is given. Include this universal disclaimer along with the questions you ask, and post the emails both asking the questions and the response in a public space and I think you avoid some of the risky things associated with emails. This would also be verifiable-a simple email to the author asking if the person actually included the disclaimer in their email could quickly confirm or deny any suspicions. If this were to be accepted the standard would be clear cut and simple: if you include the disclaimer and they acknowledge it, then the email is legit as long as it is posted in a public debate area. If this system were adopted I think that legitimate email exchanges could occur and we might see more evidence from real experts rather than random sources. 2 other suggestions: 1. A standard for how long in advance of a tournament the evidence must be posted for it to be eligible, so others could have time to correspond with other experts to produce the possible answers necessary. 2. Make it a rule that if you wish to read email evidence, you must also read the entirety of the questions you asked in the previous email during the round, not just have it available if they wish to see it. This would allow for evidence comparisons such as "you are asking leading questions...the author is not advancing this information on their own, just merely agreeing with the question." This would encourage people to ask questions that are less leading and operate more to ask an opinion from a qualified expert when they simply haven't written on an issue.

alex zavell- emory - debating

head royce wz died due to swine flu and will not be in attendance.

emory

because the JWP retired, i dont think this is happening anymore. plus, it is actually a good time. not if you seek it out.

so essentially, it quantify's something that doesn't really matter and is easily beaten?